Make the (AI/ordinary) soldiers more of a challenge and either increase the AI or decrease the player in size for a more realistic feel.

Implement some sort of weapon progression, but keep it extremely balanced. If you have been playing for 1 year or 1 day everyone has gear where the only difference is cosmetic. (that doesn't mean everyone has the same weapon just make it balanced)

I also hope the 4v4 isn't going the be the maximum for multiplayer I would love for 32v32 or more because no battle will ever be the same, 4v4 will get old pretty quick.

That is my 2 pennies worth. Not exactly original or creative thinking but IMO extremely important factors.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 04:24 PM

re 32 v 32, that would subtract heavily from the game's core mechanic/theme - the duel based combat and feel. There's nothing gained in a game like this from having a spam of opponents to face, the mechanics simply are not designed around that.

32v32 would only make sense if the maps were proportionately scaled up, but that poses problems in that it would mean creating massive, massive maps (waste of time/resources) and would make traveling around the map a ball ache for players.

Same principle applies for AI soldiers; they are background to the dueling mechanism the game employs. This was discussed in an interview somewhere (I think e3 showcase?)

As for more players in general, from what I heard, it seemed hinted that something close to 6v6/8v8 were possibilities, though probably additions to the core 4v4 game mode. Less players isn't inherently bad in a game like this, where it might be in one like an FPS where the combat system is different.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 04:57 PM

[QUOTE=tom1172821;10868552
32v32 would only make sense if the maps were proportionately scaled up, but that poses problems in that it would mean creating massive, massive maps (waste of time/resources) and would make traveling around the map a ball ache for players.
[/QUOTE]

The maps would not have to be MASSIVE in the way you might be thinking and perhaps 32vs32 would be pushing it but personally I don't think it is, I seriously think 4v4 with nothing other than cannon fodder between you and your enemy could be the games downfall.

MathiasCB

06-20-2015, 05:13 PM

I would say a MASSIVE map would not be needed, it would work fine with more or less an open battlefield.
60 players total facing each other on an open field, like actual war. Could be fighting over territory, a territorial system could be implemented too, to see which faction is the greatest holding the most land.

Let's say.. The legion holds Castle Black(imagination levels are high). The Warborn launches an attack on the castle and players get to fight in some warmode where everyone is placed outside the castle, fighting each other. Could be made in several macthes. Every match won grants points.

One big battle outside the castle 32v32. If the attackers win they get to charge the actual castle, if they lose they simply lose and don't go further. If a win, Matches go to 4v4, fighting over the actual castle.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 05:24 PM

The maps would not have to be MASSIVE in the way you might be thinking and perhaps 32vs32 would be pushing it but personally I don't think it is, I seriously think 4v4 with nothing other than cannon fodder between you and your enemy could be the games downfall.

Well they would have to be massive so that they correlate with the way the game is currently intrinsically designed for smaller fights, about five or six times the size of the 4v4 maps so that heroes are spread out enough that encounters occur between singular-pairs of heroes, rather than several at a time.

I don't see what you get added to the experience in doing this, considering the time and resources that would have to go into building it. CS:GO is 5v5 on relatively small/medium sized maps and one of the biggest major league games and most popular FPS', because the game is centred around teamwork with small numbers, as is For Honour.

SnorriUlversson

06-20-2015, 05:32 PM

Agree about AI and equipment progression, I would like to see a progrssion like WoW's PvP tiers but less strict possibly.
About massive battles I disagree, honestly it would be just a huge mess and probably a lot of people would experience lag spikes, fps drop etc...ruining game experience; but this is just my opinion

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 05:33 PM

Well they would have to be massive so that they correlate with the way the game is currently intrinsically designed for smaller fights, about five or six times the size of the 4v4 maps so that heroes are spread out enough that encounters occur between singular-pairs of heroes, rather than several at a time.

I don't see what you get added to the experience in doing this, considering the time and resources that would have to go into building it. CS:GO is 5v5 on relatively small/medium sized maps and one of the biggest major league games and most popular FPS', because the game is centred around teamwork with small numbers, as is For Honour.

If you mean 5 times larger than what was shown at E3 then what's wrong with that? if fights break out between 2v2 3v3 4v4 2v1 3v1 4v1, it just adds to the whole feeling of it being war and random.

Whats wrong with time if it means implementing something that makes more sense? Seems to me you are more interested in something being rushed and sloppy than something that takes time to be refined, I guess that might be the difference between us.

On your final point, This isn't a fps, this isn't a MLG title, not sure where your logic lies on this so I can't comment.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 05:35 PM

Agree about AI and equipment progression, I would like to see a progrssion like WoW's PvP tiers but less strict possibly.
About massive battles I disagree, honestly it would be just a huge mess and probably a lot of people would experience lag spikes, fps drop etc...ruining game experience; but this is just my opinion

Well would you agree if it was say toned down to 10v10 or 20v20 with a guaranteed lag free experience? Also War is not clean.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 05:37 PM

You've misread/not understood the principle of my argument, twice, and I won't be repeating myself.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 05:44 PM

You've misread/not understood the principle of my argument, twice, and I won't be repeating myself.

I would have classed it as a discussion, but if you prefer to have arguments then I would be happy if you didn't reply. Understand that.

McEspada

06-20-2015, 05:47 PM

I would like too see something like in wow
(i know i get burned for this but)
"Strand of the Ancients" this mod is based on a step to step encountered in strategic place like doors a.s.o..
The map does not need to be bigger but more objectives must be considered to be a interesting and fun map to play.
sry for that wow mentioning but it`s a good idea, i think.

SnorriUlversson

06-20-2015, 06:00 PM

Well would you agree if it was say toned down to 10v10 or 20v20 with a guaranteed lag free experience? Also War is not clean.

10v10 maybe, but honestly I don't know since I still haven't played it. I had some experience with MMO and huge pvp battles become always a mess without sense or minor fights of 5-10 max people for strategical purpose...

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 06:00 PM

I would like too see something like in wow
(i know i get burned for this but)
"Strand of the Ancients" this mod is based on a step to step encountered in strategic place like doors a.s.o..
The map does not need to be bigger but more objectives must be considered to be a interesting and fun map to play.
sry for that wow mentioning but it`s a good idea, i think.

Indeed a great idea, this game seems to have a perfect combat system and I love the historic battle feel to it, but this game will crash if they don't take it a couple steps further and implement reason and goal.

However having just 4v4 over and over again would get tedious. I know it wouldn't be possible to have a fully fledged scale battle due to lag and server issues but having the fight take place at strategic locations with more than 4 to create unique moments would surely be an important part of the games longevity.

Even though it's out of the question imagine this combat system in a game like the total war series, maybe even with a campaign behind it of some sort, now that would be ground breaking.

SnorriUlversson

06-20-2015, 06:07 PM

If they release something like Strand of the Ancients in For Honor I'll say goodbye to my social life...

MathiasCB

06-20-2015, 06:34 PM

Indeed a great idea, this game seems to have a perfect combat system and I love the historic battle feel to it, but this game will crash if they don't take it a couple steps further and implement reason and goal.

However having just 4v4 over and over again would get tedious. I know it wouldn't be possible to have a fully fledged scale battle due to lag and server issues but having the fight take place at strategic locations with more than 4 to create unique moments would surely be an important part of the games longevity.

Even though it's out of the question imagine this combat system in a game like the total war series, maybe even with a campaign behind it of some sort, now that would be ground breaking.

Now that would be something i would enjoy. :)

If they release something like Strand of the Ancients in For Honor I'll say goodbye to my social life...
Who needs a social life when you can fight as a huge Viking with a huge weapon. All the socialization we need is between ourselves whilst we smash our foes! I guess we can follow Legolas and Gimlis example, count every kill out loud!

Kenji_Hattori

06-20-2015, 06:39 PM

Some sort of a hope/wish list.

Make the (AI/ordinary) soldiers more of a challenge and either increase the AI or decrease the player in size for a more realistic feel.

Implement some sort of weapon progression, but keep it extremely balanced. If you have been playing for 1 year or 1 day everyone has gear where the only difference is cosmetic. (that doesn't mean everyone has the same weapon just make it balanced)

I also hope the 4v4 isn't going the be the maximum for multiplayer I would love for 32v32 or more because no battle will ever be the same, 4v4 will get old pretty quick.

That is my 2 pennies worth. Not exactly original or creative thinking but IMO extremely important factors.

I agree mostly with what you are saying. I would not mind a mode where there are a ton of players VS each other. I also would love it the "Minions" weren't minions instead were your size and real soldiers. That being said i do believe a large 32V32 would be a little difficult and probably not the best thing. It would be cool and be like a real war but with the play style focusing 1v1 it would probably be..... odd? i cant think of the word, but i don't think it would be a great idea. Probably best to keep it at no more than 10v10 if even that. But that is just my opinion, and i also agree on the cosmetic stuff, and i would have to have an advantage over anyone who is new if i have been playing for ever just because of my weapon. Im pretty sure though that they wont have a level up system to increase damage on weapons and such though.

MisterWillow

06-20-2015, 07:04 PM

However having just 4v4 over and over again would get tedious.

You'd be surprised. I am/was a big fan of the multiplayer in Uncharted, and that's 5v5, and someone else pointed out that CS:GO is 5v5, and you have to take into consideration that that's without the mobs (not to mention that LoL DOTA and Smite are all 5v5 with mobs). It all comes down to map size and/or funneling players to objectives. You don't need dozens of people for a match to be hectic and/or fun.

Seems to me you are more interested in something being rushed and sloppy than something that takes time to be refined, I guess that might be the difference between us.

Seems to me you're asking for quantity over quality.

I also think you're forgetting (or misunderstanding) that the 'art of battle' system wants to capture the intimacy of a real sword fight, where every time you cut someone down it's a triumph. I doubt very much that you would be able to maintain that feeling with 64 people on the map; or even if you could at the beginning, once enough people are killed, duels would turn into massacres, as one person would be forced to fight far more people than the battle system is meant to handle. They demonstrated that you could theoretically fight two people (there was little more than a single exchange of blows in the gameplay released so far), since blocking in the direction of the second opponent blocks everything he throws, but how well would that really work against three people? four people? ten people (should one side dominate in a large-scale battle)?

It's not like a shooter, where you can keep your distance; duck behind cover and take pop shots; chuck a couple grenades; and/or camp around a corner and wait for people to run through and shoot them in the back. You have to be in someone's face to kill them. Also, the feats are unlocked with kills, so eventually a large-scale match would turn into one or two guys (or three, or four, or ten should one side dominate) able to spam arrow storms/catapults. And it would happen, because people (especially clans) would group together, lock onto one guy, decimate, and move on. It's much harder---if not impossible---to have such a strategy exist or circumstance arise with a small player count.

Should the maps be large enough, I could see 8v8 at most. Increasing the number of players beyond that doesn't do anything to make a duel more exciting, it's just increasing the likelihood of people being outnumbered as a match drags on.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 07:18 PM

You'd be surprised. I am/was a big fan of the multiplayer in Uncharted, and that's 5v5, and someone else pointed out that CS:GO is 5v5, and you have to take into consideration that that's without the mobs (not to mention that LoL DOTA and Smite are all 5v5 with mobs). It all comes down to map size and/or funneling players to objectives. You don't need dozens of people for a match to be hectic and/or fun.

Seems to me you're asking for quantity over quality.

I also think you're forgetting (or misunderstanding) that the 'art of battle' system wants to capture the intimacy of a real sword fight, where every time you cut someone down it's a triumph. I doubt very much that you would be able to maintain that feeling with 64 people on the map; or even if you could at the beginning, once enough people are killed, duels would turn into massacres, as one person would be forced to fight far more people than the battle system is meant to handle. They demonstrated that you could theoretically fight two people (there was little more than a single exchange of blows in the gameplay released so far), since blocking in the direction of the second opponent blocks everything he throws, but how well would that really work against three people? four people? ten people (should one side dominate in a large-scale battle)?

It's not like a shooter, where you can keep your distance; duck behind cover and take pop shots; chuck a couple grenades; and/or camp around a corner and wait for people to run through and shoot them in the back. You have to be in someone's face to kill them. Also, the feats are unlocked with kills, so eventually a large-scale match would turn into one or two guys (or three, or four, or ten should one side dominate) able to spam arrow storms/catapults. And it would happen, because people (especially clans) would group together, lock onto one guy, decimate, and move on. It's much harder---if not impossible---to have such a strategy exist or circumstance arise with a small player count.

Should the maps be large enough, I could see 8v8 at most. Increasing the number of players beyond that doesn't do anything to make a duel more exciting, it's just increasing the likelihood of people being outnumbered as a match drags on.

I stopped reading after that, I have no interest in someone who likes to throw around assumptions. So I regret (or do i?) to inform you, that was a waste of time typing on your end, if you expect me to read it. Ridiculous.

Also if you would like a lesson in how to disagree before you add to the discussion in future, read what Kenji and Snorri had to say and understand disagreement doesn't have to resort to assumptions without evidence.

Oakmantle

06-20-2015, 07:37 PM

I also believe the developers stated that the idea of "Heroes" was an integral part of the design philosophy. As much as historical accuracy, they may also want to replicate the feeling of being someone that really stands above others on the battlefield, much like the famous generals of Feudal Japan, legendary Knights and Viking warlords.

Personally I do not think this game benefits much from having numbers as high as some have suggested. Not only does it appear to run counter to the 1v1 and more intimate design philosophies, but also stand a great risk of lowering performance and turning tactical combat into a fairly mindless thug of war. Especially for random players, acting to a team's interests is hard enough as it is in smaller groups, and it will undoubtedly make for scenarios where Clans go on pubstomps. And though you can argue for Clan vs. Clan, I am not so sure that organizing even 10+ players on each side for every match is something that is going to keep the gamemode, and subsequently the game itself, envigorated for long.

And OUTLAW_Smokey, I do not mean to be rude, but I suggest you stop taking all the arguements as personal offenses. We are all just trying to pitch our own constructive ideas for the game we already love, even though it's not even out yet.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 07:40 PM

I agree mostly with what you are saying. I would not mind a mode where there are a ton of players VS each other. I also would love it the "Minions" weren't minions instead were your size and real soldiers. That being said i do believe a large 32V32 would be a little difficult and probably not the best thing. It would be cool and be like a real war but with the play style focusing 1v1 it would probably be..... odd? i cant think of the word, but i don't think it would be a great idea. Probably best to keep it at no more than 10v10 if even that. But that is just my opinion, and i also agree on the cosmetic stuff, and i would have to have an advantage over anyone who is new if i have been playing for ever just because of my weapon. Im pretty sure though that they wont have a level up system to increase damage on weapons and such though.

I possibly did go over board with 32v32 however depending on the battleground it could work, as a separate mode, I may be wrong, as it is only opinion but 10vs10 with more challenging minions in the similar game mode shown at e3 would be not too chaotic but enough to create unique moments.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 07:43 PM

I also believe the developers stated that the idea of "Heroes" was an integral part of the design philosophy. As much as historical accuracy, they may also want to replicate the feeling of being someone that really stands above others on the battlefield, much like the famous generals of Feudal Japan, legendary Knights and Viking warlords.

Personally I do not think this game benefits much from having numbers as high as some have suggested. Not only does it appear to run counter to the 1v1 and more intimate design philosophies, but also stand a great risk of lowering performance and turning tactical combat into a fairly mindless thug of war. Especially for random players, acting to a team's interests is hard enough as it is in smaller groups, and it will undoubtedly make for scenarios where Clans go on pubstomps. And though you can argue for Clan vs. Clan, I am not so sure that organizing even 10+ players on each side for every match is something that is going to keep the gamemode, and subsequently the game itself, envigorated for long.

And OUTLAW_Smokey, I do not mean to be rude, but I suggest you stop taking all the arguements as personal offenses. We are all just trying to pitch our own constructive ideas for the game we already love, even though it's not even out yet.

You miss judge me, I am just not a fan of people who like to assume. Does that bother you? I like people who have different opinions but not people who attack mine in a manner which either insults (which has not happened) or make false judgement which has. I'm sorry to disappoint you if you think otherwise.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 07:45 PM

I also believe the developers stated that the idea of "Heroes" was an integral part of the design philosophy. As much as historical accuracy, they may also want to replicate the feeling of being someone that really stands above others on the battlefield, much like the famous generals of Feudal Japan, legendary Knights and Viking warlords.

Personally I do not think this game benefits much from having numbers as high as some have suggested. Not only does it appear to run counter to the 1v1 and more intimate design philosophies, but also stand a great risk of lowering performance and turning tactical combat into a fairly mindless thug of war. Especially for random players, acting to a team's interests is hard enough as it is in smaller groups, and it will undoubtedly make for scenarios where Clans go on pubstomps. And though you can argue for Clan vs. Clan, I am not so sure that organizing even 10+ players on each side for every match is something that is going to keep the gamemode, and subsequently the game itself, envigorated for long.

And OUTLAW_Smokey, I do not mean to be rude, but I suggest you stop taking all the arguements as personal offenses. We are all just trying to pitch our own constructive ideas for the game we already love, even though it's not even out yet.

I agree that we "the hero" should stand out and be stronger, but not to the point where you are like 2 ft taller and just wipe the minions aside like dirt.

Oakmantle

06-20-2015, 07:56 PM

You miss judge me, I am just not a fan of people who like to assume. Does that bother you? I like people who have different opinions but not people who attack mine in a manner which either insults (which has not happened) or make false judgement which has. I'm sorry to disappoint you if you think otherwise.

It's just the way you formulate yourself in your replies. Things like "I'm sorry to disappoint you if you think otherwise" really gives the whole thing a toxic tone. It's really not the kind of phrasing you would use if your intentions were to come across as respectable, and it goes a long way to incite negative responses. I am of course by no means disappointed that you are not out to be rude, as neither am I.

And yes, it may be a little bit too easy to mow through the npc soldiers. It may be that they don't want people to get hurt and disadvantaged in the PvP aspect because of engaging creeps or getting mobbed up on by them, but you can counter that by saying a player should be smarter about engaging them in the first place. I will just wait to hear what the devs have to say myself.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 07:58 PM

So Outlaw, are you going to provide a response to those criticisms that people are presenting, or just ad hominem your way about this thread?

I'll sumarise:

The very fundamentals of the game's design are conceived for small teams, something which - if larger teams were integrated - would require so many changes to the core mechanics that otherwise the game would be unbalanced, unintuitive, uninteresting etc.

Also, that when people mention games such as CS:GO, they are doing it to present an example of a small team based game which is successful, despite you claiming such a feature to be a fundamental downfall.

As an addition, the more opponents you add to the field, the less personal the experiance becomes, something which the Devs have mentioned is the VERY FOUNDATION of the game's concept (the story about wanting to capture the feeling of a duel.

I'd appreciate you addressing these points individually, rather than blanketed responses of before.

p.s, with a communication platform such as a forum, people NEED to make assumptions to interpret incomplete data (the inefficiency of text-based language). This is unavoidable.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 08:03 PM

It's just the way you formulate yourself in your replies. Things like "I'm sorry to disappoint you if you think otherwise" really gives the whole thing a toxic tone. It's really not the kind of phrasing you would use if your intentions were to come across as respectable, and it goes a long way to incite negative responses. I am of course by no means disappointed that you are not out to be rude, as neither am I.

And yes, it may be a little bit too easy to mow through the npc soldiers. It may be that they don't want people to get hurt and disadvantaged in the PvP aspect because of engaging creeps or getting mobbed up on by them, but you can counter that by saying a player should be smarter about engaging them in the first place. I will just wait to hear what the devs have to say myself.

The "toxic tone" as you like to put it is intentional, to make it clear that I won't respect someone who shows no respect, what is most ironic is the way you mention not to sound rude yet you like to judge also based on no merit.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 08:05 PM

So Outlaw, are you going to provide a response to those criticisms that people are presenting, or just ad hominem your way about this thread?

I'll sumarise:

The very fundamentals of the game's design are conceived for small teams, something which - if larger teams were integrated - would require so many changes to the core mechanics that otherwise the game would be unbalanced, unintuitive, uninteresting etc.

Also, that when people mention games such as CS:GO, they are doing it to present an example of a small team based game which is successful, despite you claiming such a feature to be a fundamental downfall.

As an addition, the more opponents you add to the field, the less personal the experiance becomes, something which the Devs have mentioned is the VERY FOUNDATION of the game's concept (the story about wanting to capture the feeling of a duel.

I'd appreciate you addressing these points individually, rather than blanketed responses of before.

p.s, with a communication platform such as a forum, people NEED to make assumptions to interpret incomplete data (the inefficiency of text-based language). This is unavoidable.

I thought I made it clear I have no intent in having an argument with you, but if you must come back for some reason, let me leave you with this, judge those based on what you know not what you don't.

"So Outlaw, are you going to provide a response to those criticisms that people are presenting, or just ad hominem your way about this thread?"

Already addressed on page 2 maybe you missed it? I wouldn't be surprised.

MisterWillow

06-20-2015, 08:10 PM

I stopped reading after that, I have no interest in someone who likes to throw around assumptions. So I regret (or do i?) to inform you, that was a waste of time typing on your end, if you expect me to read it. Ridiculous.

Also if you would like a lesson in how to disagree before you add to the discussion in future, read what Kenji and Snorri had to say and understand disagreement doesn't have to resort to assumptions without evidence.

You made the first assumption. I was responding to it. I suppose you read the quote above the line where you stopped, since it was a quote from you.

I quote you again:

Seems to me you are more interested in something being rushed and sloppy than something that takes time to be refined, I guess that might be the difference between us..

Either respond to my criticism or don't, but don't act so imperious. Doing so hardly invalidates what I said.

Oakmantle

06-20-2015, 08:10 PM

The "toxic tone" as you like to put it is intentional, to make it clear that I won't respect someone who shows no respect, what is most ironic is the way you mention not to sound rude yet you like to judge also based on no merit.

Merely giving the feedback to what I see. And it isn't to sound rude, as I honestly felt like you were coming back far worse than the people you responded to. I wish to point out that you cannot expect people to behave towards you based on merits they have no way of knowing. It is by responding to them in a respectful manner that you can earn their respect in turn - simply being the bigger person.

I do not wish to perpetuate a debate on the subject, however. If you want to talk I am available through PM. It's not what this thread is meant for ^^;

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 08:11 PM

I thought I made it clear I have no intent in having an argument with you, but if you must come back for some reason, let me leave you with this, judge those based on what you know not what you don't.

There you are, I knew it wouldn't take you too long. I must whole heartedly disagree with each statement, I've already made it clear but you must be illiterate to not notice the difference between not accepting a different opinion which I have and not rising to trolls such as yourself who like to attack someone with false judgement.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 08:23 PM

There you are, I knew it wouldn't take you too long. I must whole heartedly disagree with each statement, I've already made it clear but you must be illiterate to not notice the difference between not accepting a different opinion which I have and not rising to trolls such as yourself who like to attack someone with false judgement.

I wish only to apologize to our community moderator in advance >.< It's a bit of a mess, really. We still love you for the work you do however! Keep it up d(-.^d)

MisterWillow

06-20-2015, 08:30 PM

The "toxic tone" as you like to put it is intentional, to make it clear that I won't respect someone who shows no respect, what is most ironic is the way you mention not to sound rude yet you like to judge also based on no merit.

Talk about irony. You've shown little respect yourself, and been nothing but dismissive to people critical of your suggestion.

MathiasCB

06-20-2015, 08:36 PM

Merely giving the feedback to what I see. And it isn't to sound rude, as I honestly felt like you were coming back far worse than the people you responded to. I wish to point out that you cannot expect people to behave towards you based on merits they have no way of knowing. It is by responding to them in a respectful manner that you can earn their respect in turn - simply being the bigger person.

I do not wish to perpetuate a debate on the subject, however. If you want to talk I am available through PM. It's not what this thread is meant for ^^;

THIS, i wanted to read. Felt like things we're starting to get out of hand. Bury the hatchet.

I held back from actually commenting and typing on things just too read a bit, happy i didn't. Even though much of what was said was unnecessary, I've changed my opinion on the ''battlefield'' thing i earlier wrote about. A large scale fight wouldn't work out with the way the game is made, as somebody said earlier(Sorry forgot whom it was.). However, would still like to fight over territories between the factions.

Then again, i would still love a large battlefield with quite many NPCs running around, to simply simulate a war, could still be 4v4.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 08:36 PM

Talk about irony. You've shown little respect yourself, and been nothing but dismissive to people critical of your suggestion.

Incorrect, I have been dismissive to people who judge, that I feel is now being said like hitting a dead horse. Do I respect you? No, but please don't generalise everybody into that statement, again another assumption.

MisterWillow

06-20-2015, 08:51 PM

Incorrect, I have been dismissive to people who judge, that I feel is now being said like hitting a dead horse. Do I respect you? No, but please don't generalise everybody into that statement, again another assumption.

No...

You made a suggestion, people said "I don't think that would work for these reasons" and you responded with "why are you judging me!? be more respectful!".

Nobody's made a personal attack on you (the slight dig on my part was a play on a phrase you used first), and as far as I'm aware, people are more than willing to discuss the matter. You don't seem interested in that. Not 'generalising everybody into that statement'---just you.

Whatever. With the way this conversation is going, its not worse continuing.

I wish only to apologize to our community moderator in advance >.< It's a bit of a mess, really. We still love you for the work you do however! Keep it up d(-.^d)

That too. Apologies.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 08:53 PM

A made a new thread with a poll on this topic if anyone cares to discuss it.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 08:59 PM

No...

You made a suggestion, people said "I don't think that would work for these reasons" and you responded with "why are you judging me!? be more respectful!".

Nobody's made a personal attack on you (the slight dig on my part was a play on a phrase you used first), and as far as I'm aware, people are more than willing to discuss the matter. You don't seem interested in that. Not 'generalising everybody into that statement'---just you.

Whatever. With the way this conversation is going, its not worse continuing.

That too. Apologies.

I have tried to discuss my case in a civil manner but once people start making assumptions based on my opinion that is when things go too far, I have not made judgment on anyone regarding what their opinion is, I would much prefer it if people could keep this on topic and not join in the bandwagon of the illiterate bunch.

Apologises to all and any mods having to reading through what was suppose to be a general discussion before the judgmental people started chiming in, I do defend myself when assumptions are made such as "I prefer quantity over quality" or "I am toxic" and many more digs as the previous poster has put, something that has no place IMO, anyway again, please keep it on topic.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 09:01 PM

A made a new thread with a poll on this topic if anyone cares to discuss it.

Could have been discussed here if you didn't start putting up pictures of people with the word bad *** and started insulting, but please do go over to your unspoiled thread where I promise not to interfere with your thread like you have done here.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 09:06 PM

You do realise that I returned to the original topic about a page ago, yet you shot me down with some Buddhist esque prophesy riddle.

Also, I'm not sure you know what the word "illiterate" means, as you keep using it wrongly while - rather ironically - using improper grammar.

Of course, if you would like to address the points I raised like a dozen or so posts ago, i'd be willing to discuss it.

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 09:16 PM

You do realise that I returned to the original topic about a page ago, yet you shot me down with some Buddhist esque prophesy riddle.

Also, I'm not sure you know what the word "illiterate" means, as you keep using it wrongly while - rather ironically - using improper grammar.

Of course, if you would like to address the points I raised like a dozen or so posts ago, i'd be willing to discuss it.

Why are you still here? Illiterate being unable to read or write, in this case read. Please stop trying to de-rail this thread please. I already answered someone else long after your judgmental posts. I do not wish to discuss with someone who is here to argue.

spaff_meister

06-20-2015, 09:18 PM

lol, as if you highlighted "i'd." Classic.

Okay, okay. I'm going now. That's all, folks!

OUTLAW_Smokey

06-20-2015, 09:21 PM

lol, as if you highlighted "i'd." Classic.

Okay, okay. I'm going now. That's all, folks!

Amused me too...LOL

Narnsil

06-20-2015, 10:42 PM

Uhnm... a little emotional guys, let's just keep cool :cool:

Regardless, the number of players, map size, minions currant mechanics and stats are, in my humble opinion, not a problem, and any alteration should be considered after more important game features being implemented and* optimization for the current game size.

Big battles are alwys nice, more players it's more fun, but I ,IMHO, don't feel that the Dev's should be wasting their times in this right now.

Edit: * and

Oakmantle

06-20-2015, 10:46 PM

Uhnm... a little emotional guys, let's just keep cool :cool:

Regardless, the number of players, map size, minions currant mechanics and stats are, in my humble opinion, not a problem, and any alteration should be considered after more important game features being implemented and* optimization for the current game size.

Big battles are alwys nice, more players it's more fun, but I ,IMHO, don't feel that the Dev's should be wasting their times in this right now.

Edit: * and

Agreed with the Space Marine on the lavatory d(-.^d)

Kenji_Hattori

06-21-2015, 12:14 AM

Uhnm... a little emotional guys, let's just keep cool :cool:

Regardless, the number of players, map size, minions currant mechanics and stats are, in my humble opinion, not a problem, and any alteration should be considered after more important game features being implemented and* optimization for the current game size.

Big battles are alwys nice, more players it's more fun, but I ,IMHO, don't feel that the Dev's should be wasting their times in this right now.

Edit: * and

Yes this!
And please lets stop insulting people. Lets make this the first game where the community is a nice one. Lets not say "Your illiterate" Lets say "I dont think you understand what i mean, i mean......" Obviously no one is illiterate as we would not be able to reply. Also if someone says something you disagree with and you aren't going to provide a good conversation then ignore it. Thank you.

The Devs are doing what they think needs to be done, as it is their game and they have an idea and know what they want, we have no say in it until its finished as they are the ones who made it. not us. We will provide feedback and let them know what we think, but ultimately they know what it should be like.

Kenji_Hattori

06-21-2015, 12:23 AM

I possibly did go over board with 32v32 however depending on the battleground it could work, as a separate mode, I may be wrong, as it is only opinion but 10vs10 with more challenging minions in the similar game mode shown at e3 would be not too chaotic but enough to create unique moments.

Having more challanging minions is something i would enjoy, and is not talked about much. I go back to a game like Samurai Warriors where you have anywhere from 2-8 different "Mini heros" who are not exactly at your status, but who wont go down in one or two hits. That is something i hope might be integrated in. And i dont think it would take away from the battle. Maybe make it so they can be targeted like a Player but they would obviously fall quicker.

slicknick99

06-21-2015, 01:36 AM

having more challanging minions is something i would enjoy, and is not talked about much. I go back to a game like samurai warriors where you have anywhere from 2-8 different "mini heros" who are not exactly at your status, but who wont go down in one or two hits. That is something i hope might be integrated in. And i dont think it would take away from the battle. Maybe make it so they can be targeted like a player but they would obviously fall quicker.

this!!!

guest-7Ayf99Z5

06-21-2015, 02:20 AM

I feel like the OP has a fundamental misunderstanding of what this game is supposed to represent. Or maybe I do, but he seems way off.

The reason the heroes look so tall and intimidating compared to the AI mobs is that they are supposed to be like characters out of myth. I don't see this as a "realistic" game at all, rather; I see it as something more akin to something like Game of Thrones. The player characters are not simple good warriors, but represent characters like Barristan Selmy who cut down ten men in one battle or Gregor "The Mountain" Clegane who was eight feet tall in the books and literally towered over everyone. That's what I want out of this game. I want to be a character out of the legends, cleaving through hordes of faceless minions until I'm faced with the threat of another true hero.